And what about all these Asiatic cars sold in America,including Canada???We make cars here and good ones, so why send the majority of the profits oversea for something we can make here? Much more money sent there from American/Canadian cars buyers compare to anthracite. That rule applies to everythings not only anthracite.Yes worldwide and one of these days THEY will tell us what we should do.

Didn't look like anyone had explained the descrepancy on your thread between the data in that PDF on US recoverable reserves (60 M) vs PA DNR estimate of 12 billion tons, which I haven't seen, but will research. That's 60 M vs. 12 --it's off by a factor of 200.

Didn't look like anyone had explained the discrepancy on your thread between the data in that PDF on US recoverable reserves (60 M) vs PA DNR estimate of 12 billion tons, which I haven't seen, but will research. That's 60 M vs. 12 --it's off by a factor of 200.

The difference is all in the word "recoverable', which really means economically recoverable. In Eastern Pennsylvania there quite likely are 12 billion tons of what would fall into the statistical range of coals with properties that warrant the title "anthracite". Of those 12 billion tons, only 60 million tons are likely to be economically recoverable, as well as of a level of purity and quality that warrant such recovery. The rest is truly there, but would only be extractable and purifiable with great difficulty and at ridiculously great expense and/or danger (so for all intent and purpose it is not viably recoverable).

The same is true for all grades of coal. When the government tells us that there are 350 or so years worth of coal remaining in the USA, that statement is only true under the context that it is undeniably there and measurable. It is a purely empty statement that is only meant to make us feel good. It says only that it is there, and it says nothing about our ability to economically recover it for any practical real world use. It is also generally prefaced by the line "at current rates of consumption" (as in: "at current rates of consumption there are an estimated 350 years of coal remaining in the United States."). The term "current rates of consumption" completely degrades the value and significance of the empty contention that 350 years worth of coal remain. For example, if we actually ever actually decided to use our coal reserves in order to 100% replace foreign oil (and yes, oil can be made from coal) then our real rates of consumption would easily go up a hundred fold or more, reducing the 350 years of reserve of coal to a mere 35 years of reserve or less.

Didn't look like anyone had explained the discrepancy on your thread between the data in that PDF on US recoverable reserves (60 M) vs PA DNR estimate of 12 billion tons, which I haven't seen, but will research. That's 60 M vs. 12 --it's off by a factor of 200.

The difference is all in the word "recoverable', which really means economically recoverable. In Eastern Pennsylvania there quite likely are 12 billion tons of what would fall into the statistical range of coals with properties that warrant the title "anthracite". Of those 12 billion tons, only 60 million tons are likely to be economically recoverable, as well as of a level of purity and quality that warrant such recovery. The rest is truly there, but would only be extractable and purifiable with great difficulty and at ridiculously great expense and/or danger (so for all intent and purpose it is not viably recoverable).

The same is true for all grades of coal. When the government tells us that there are 350 or so years worth of coal remaining in the USA, that statement is only true under the context that it is undeniably there and measurable. It is a purely empty statement that is only meant to make us feel good. It says only that it is there, and it says nothing about our ability to economically recover it for any practical real world use. It is also generally prefaced by the line "at current rates of consumption" (as in: "at current rates of consumption there are an estimated 350 years of coal remaining in the United States."). The term "current rates of consumption" completely degrades the value and significance of the empty contention that 350 years worth of coal remain. For example, if we actually ever actually decided to use our coal reserves in order to 100% replace foreign oil (and yes, oil can be made from coal) then our real rates of consumption would easily go up a hundred fold or more, reducing the 350 years of reserve of coal to a mere 35 years of reserve or less.

Holy cats, there is a lot more than 60million tons of Anth in the NEPA.

Actually, if you read my blurb again, I was admitting to the potential for 12 billion tons of NEPA anthracite reserves. I upped your reserves by 2 to 6 billion tons. I also said that perhaps only 60 million of those tons will prove to be "economically" recoverable.

Think of it like oil. In the mainland USA today at least half of the oil we started with is still under ground, but with many thousands more rigs (some big, many small) churning than in 1970 we can only annually pull out 50% of what we pulled out back then, and what we are pulling out is costing us a bunch more than it did back then. And in another generation or so we will be pulling less than 25% out of the 48 states than we did back in 1970, and it will not matter how many more straws we sink into the ground, as we will not reverse this terminally downward trend.

It's likely that at least half of the anthracite that was there before it was discovered is still under ground, but we highgraded it, and far and away most of the easy to get to stuff has already been mined, not to mention that some quantity was torched in place.

Actually, if you read my blurb again, I was admitting to the potential for 12 billion tons of NEPA anthracite reserves. I upped your reserves by 2 to 6 billion tons. I also said that perhaps only 60 million of those tons will prove to be "economically" recoverable.

See, that's what's confusing about the geological data.

The 'demonstrated reserve base' is classified as tehnically economically recoverable. So I take that to mean using todays technologies.

Demonstrated Reserve Base (DRB) (or just "reserve base" in USGS usage) is, in its broadest sense, defined as those parts of identified resources that meet specified minimum physical and chemical criteria related to current mining and production practices, including those for quality, depth, thickness, rank, and distance from points of measurement. The "reserve base" is the in-place demonstrated resource from which reserves are estimated. The reserve base may encompass those parts of a resource that have a reasonable potential for becoming economically recoverable within planning horizons that extend beyond those which assume proven technology and current economics